More Questions than Answers.
Offline More Questions than Answers.
I had a thought about how best to demonstrate the logical holes in the bible to fundies.
It occurred to me that beside the evidence we have that contradicts the biblical account. The largest hole is the multitude of questions that are raised by the bible, and belief in a personal loving god. Many more than it answers.
This post is an exercise in laziness.
I would like you to post any questions you can think of (try not to repeat the posts of others) that the bible raises upon the assumption of it's authenticity that it does not answer. (rather than thinking of them all myself.)
I also Invite all Theist on the forums to answer these questions within the rules of rational debate.
For the purpose of this we are assuming the bible is the true and infallible word of the living inerrant god.
The purpose would be to eventually turn this into a tool for liberating people of superstitious belief.
Here are a few examples to start.
Why does god not heal amputees?
There are some people in the world who never had the oppurtunity to receive Christ, are these people in hell and if so why would a loving merciful god let this happen? and if not why have they been let into heaven? is there an exception for ignorance?
Why do animals have vestigial limbs and organs?
Why do fish that live in a zero light environment have eyes?
Questions are more valuable than Answers.
An answer without a question cannot exist.
But a question can exist independently.
However this does not mean there is no such thing as a stupid question.
"Why are we here?" is one such question.
- Login to post comments
I have a list of those questions here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/66
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I should have looked for that first.
thank you, feel free to remove this thread.
Sorry about that.
Questions are more valuable than Answers.
An answer without a question cannot exist.
But a question can exist independently.
However this does not mean there is no such thing as a stupid question.
"Why are we here?" is one such question.
It's ok. That thread was designed to get answers, it seems this thread is designed to create questions. Let's leave it up and see if more good questions come. I just wanted to make sure you had the questions I posted in your repertoire.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
OK, let me pick apart the account of the exodus.
First off, the bible tells us that the population consisted of about 600,000 men plus women, children and an unspecific but large number of other people. Also, they took all of their livestock with them.
That must have freed up quite a bit of farm land back in Egypt. Yet there is no record of what happened to the farm land.
For that matter, how did the jews manage to feed upward of two million people with no farmland to work?
In addition, the distance from Cairo to Jerusalem is about 250 miles. It took them 40 years to make the trip for an average speed of just over 6 miles per year. Now archaeologists can find evidence of encampments of much smaller armies than that but there is no evidence of the Jewish encampments in any part of the region.
Then there is the Egyptian army that was sent after them. Presumably another two million or so people. Of course they only made it as far as the red sea. Even so, if Egypt lost that many troops in one day, wouldn't their rivals such as the Hittites have noticed and taken advantage of the situation?
Remember that including the army, Egypt now has four million fewer mouths to feed. What nation would not try to take that prize?
=
These are all excellent questions, but there is a very basic term used in logic circles that describes the problem of "makes more questions than it answers", and that term is "infinite regress".
"Infinite regress" is the problem that is caused by a claim with a starting point that assumes complexity as a cause. The problem with assuming complexity as the cause is that it twists logic backwards and the only way the person who makes these claims from a complex starting point is by presumptive "naked assertion".
A "naked assertion" is merely making a claim without any prior established data that has been universally empirically tested and proven. Ambiguity is how the believer attempts to get around the burden of proof.
"infinite regress" is anything that begs the question. It is a problem caused by making ANYTHING needlessly complex instead of looking for the least convoluted solution first. "Law of probability" is the tool one should use to avoid "infinite regress".
"Law of probability" sates that out of many multiple asserted claims as an answer to a problem, the one that has the least baggage and is the least complex is the most likely answer.
EXAMPLE:
Thor was once a claim that people made and truly believed in as to the cause of storms and thunder and lighting. This is a needlessly complex answer and a gap as well.
But when you start from the REAL and simple scientific particles that get charged, together they are complex, but individually they are simple.
Adam popping out of dirt is needlessly complex as a claim. Atoms, which are simple individually, make up more complex molecules, which make up more complex DNA. That goes on to manifest into more complex sperm, then it combines with an egg(made up with less complicated molecules and less complicated atoms).
Infinite regress is the problem caused by inserting complexity as the starting point.
If god is infinitely complex then what created that god and what created that god and what created that god....."begs the question".
Whereas the problem with infinite regress is solved by considering a less complicated answer(by employing law of probability). People like the idea of a super hero and our species has always had a history of making them up. Out of those to asserted explanations, which one do you think is more likely?
A hurricane is a complex weather pattern. But it starts off with less complicated air and water. No one in their right mind assumes that Posiden makes a hurricane.
Any good car mechanic will not strip the entire engine apart as the starting point, merely because the car wont start. They will start working through the simplest causes first.(This is employing law of probability)
God is a needlessly complex answer as a cause to everything. Good logic starts by looking for the least complicated first.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Deity belief exists for a very mundane simple reason. Humans like the idea of being protected. We try to protect ourselves from the time we are born to the time we die. We attempt to look for patterns to do this. When we see something we think works, we go with it. Unfortunately, most of the time in our species history, we make very bad guesses and do little to test them and more often than not our sample rates are skewed and bias. It has only been in the last century that scientific method has been become widely competitive with superstition.
Deity belief works as a placebo, a place card to the unknown. It does provide "safety in numbers" and socializing, but that doesn't constitute reality, that merely reflects a given culture's beliefs. Most of the world at one time believed that the earth was flat.
Smokers claim a calming their nerves affect when stressed, but although it may work in calming them, the REAL danger is lung cancer.
Religion does do some good in a very tribal and tangential sense. It does far more damage in causing division amongst humans and has throughout history fought the advance of science.
But ANYTHING that is blindly bought and sold can make anyone who doesn't kick the tires a sucker. Politics and even sports can be just as tribal and dogmatic as a deity belief.
Pragmatic method in testing a claim with a universal standard is the only way to filter out personal bias.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hi. I'm new to the site, but I just spent the last seven--yes seven--hours perusing the site when I should have been working on a paper
Anyway, I'm not an intellectual giant like many of these members, and don't really want to debate yet. Hence, I look at other debates.
This is the first time I've really looked at pragmatic method, believe it or not. So much for the argument I had the other day on whether clapton is god. Although, yes. Clapton is god. Entertain my ignorance for a minute and expound on how pragmatic method filters bias. Or you could wait till I get some sleep and come back to figure it out myself. I've been up for about 30 hours and am no longer thinking properly.
Btw, how dare you quote a communist like Obama. He was born in Indonesia right? Sheesh Im tired.